Wow! President Obama is finally taking the gloves off and focusing like a laser on publicly demolishing his opponents in so far as he is able to without literally throwing tomatoes at them. Great news, right? Isn't it about time? Who can even begin to explain how he tolerated the birth certificate crap, the "he's a Muslim" stuff, the planning to take over Texas coup, and all the other completely bogus charges that have been leveled at him by the Right over the years without blowing a gasket.
Ummm. . . . see there's the problem. The people that President Obama has determined deserve the full brunt of his finally unleashed frustrations are not, as it turns out, the Right and the obstreperous, recalcitrant Republicans who have blocked his every move. No, the people on the receiving end of his derision, ridicule and contempt are his fellow Democrats, specifically those "Progressive Democrats" who are refusing to get with the program and pass what apparently is supposed to be his final signature, legacy cementing piece of legislation, the TPP and his ability to fast track it.
Someone explain this to me, because it defies logic and common sense and plain old-fashioned political horse sense. How has the President managed to align himself with Republicans on this trade agreement and to be on the wrong side of the majority of Democrats and labor and workers and environmentalists and consumer advocates?
Seriously, what the heck is going on? befuddled Democrats would like to know how things came to such a pass.
The internecine food fight among Democrats is not going unnoticed:
Obama mocks the opposition
(The following quote is President Obama describing TPP opposing Democrats):
"Their arguments are based on fears, or they're fighting NAFTA, the trade deal that was passed 25 years ago - or 20 years ago," he said with a laugh. Sighing, he added, "I understand the emotions behind it, but when you break down the logic of their arguments, I've got to say that there's not much there there." He said one of his Democratic critics' arguments "doesn't make any sense," another is "pure speculation," and others are "made up" or unrealistic.
"There's no logic that I think a progressive should embrace that would make you opposed to this deal," he said, accusing those who disagree of taking the "not smart" position of trying to "ignore the fact that a global economy is here to stay" and of acting to "shrink the overall economic pie just because we're mad about some things that have happened in the past."
The rhetoric suggests that Obama has given up trying to persuade Democrats to join him in supporting "fast-track" approval of the emerging Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and that he's lashing out at them in anger. Without Democratic support, the fast-track legislation faces a tough slog on Capitol Hill, especially in the House.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/...
The Prez was overly verbose as is occasionally his wont. He could have been more concise by simply saying ,
"You see, these so-called "progressives" are fearful, ignorant, grudge-carrying Luddites living in a fantasy world where they are still tilting at NAFTA windmills. Sadly, they refuse to recognize my superior logic and won't just trust me to negotiate this global agreement with long-term lasting economic, environmental, and legal impacts without some input and supervision. Can you believe that?!"
Gosh, I don't know, but maybe some of the Democrats recall how they were sandbagged on the public option in the ACA or maybe they have memories of quick the President was to put chained CPI on the table during budget negotiations in 2011 and how they had to fight him on that as well. One hates to voice the thought, but perhaps some Democrats have learned that the President hasn't been exactly the best negotiator, often asking the least and ceding the most in his so-far failed efforts to forge bi-partisan consensus that have failed to move the implacable Republicans. Until now.
Incredibly, the President has found an issue that has completely unified BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats, just not in ways that one would expect.
The President and Republicans have at last found that comity and unity he has long sought and have locked arms in their unified march to pass yet another Trade agreement sought by the multinational corporate overlords who have chafed under restrictive national regulations and oversight long enough.
And who is almost as completely unified in opposition on the side against the TPP? Why, that would be the DEMOCRATS, the members of the President's own Party, whose offensive against the offensive parts of the pact has been led by the Progressive wing, notably Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown. It is these spoilsports that the President has focused on with his anti-charm bazooka. It's kind of like that old dynamic where you feel at liberty to say awful things about your own family in private that you would never allow outsiders to say without taking a swing at them. Only Obama is not saying these things in private, he's declared open warfare on a significant part of his Party. He's saying stuff about some Democrats that he's never even hinted at when provoked and challenged by actual science-denying troglodytes of the opposition Party.
Aside from bashing TPP opposing Democrats in general, the President singled out for particular notice Senator Elizabeth Warren. Matt Bai, Yahoo News Obama interview
“The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else,” he said. “And you know, she’s got a voice that she wants to get out there. And I understand that. And on most issues, she and I deeply agree. On this one, though, her arguments don’t stand the test of fact and scrutiny.”
Pretty succinct but we all get the message - Elizabeth Warren is a political opportunist who is promoting herself and her brand and she is completely and totally wrong about the TPP. Okay then. . . . One wonders how much the President and Senator Warren will deeply agree in the future.
As far as I am aware, until now, Senator Warren and all the other opponents of the TPP have confined themselves to discussion of the specific aspects of the pact that they are against and which cause them concern, which they have laid out. President Obama escalated when he discussed Senator Warren on a personal level as a grasping, calculating self-promoter who was advancing flimsy, non-reality based arguments.
Now the food fight really begins. Sherrod Brown steps up to the plate and objects to the personal nature of the President's remarks which he wonders might not be just a little . . . . sexist. Whoo boy
Sherrod Brown says President Obama was 'Disrespectful' of Elizabeth Warren
“I think the president was disrespectful to her by the way he did that. I think that the president has made this more personal than he needed to," Brown told Capitol Hill reporters. "I think by calling her 'another politician' -- I'm not going to get into more details -- I think referring to her as first-name when he might not have done that for a male senator, perhaps -- I've said enough."
He goes on to say that the President should not have implied that critics of the bill collectively as a group did not know what they were talking about.
Bernie Sanders also weighs in, keeping himself above the fray opining that Americans don't care about the personality clashes between Warren and the President, they care about jobs. Good job Bernie for diplomatically ducking the peas and tomatoes flying around your head.
Then we have Rosa DeLauro being unsurprised about the Prez going after Warren, reminiscing about the good old days when Bill Clinton called Democrats who opposed NAFTA "thugs". (Memories, misty water colored memories . . ) Some things just never change, I guess.
I'll go ahead and give my opinion - I don't think the President was being sexist as he has frequently called people by their first name, but I do think that he was being both condescending (Elizabeth doesn't know what she's talking about) and pretty damn insulting ( the promoting her brand stuff). Oh well, definitely not out of the pages of How To Make Friends and Influence People. More like How to Alienate People You Need in Your Own Party Strange, unless . . .
Perhaps President Obama has made the decision that he doesn't need the ascendent Progressive wing of the Party and he will just fly with the Republican majority and those ever faithful DINOS who usually will join the red state flock as well under the right circumstances?
That is exactly the 12th dimensional chess argument that Matthew Yglesias makes in this Vox article, believe it or not. Obama's real problem on trade is way bigger than Elizabeth Warren
In a nutshell Yglesias posits that the groups aligned with Warren, which include the AFL-Cio, the Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council, Doctors Without Borders, The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Consumer's Union, and The Alliance for Justice are too well-known and well-established for the President to take on head to head. While it's hard for the President to maintain that they are all wrong, that doesn't stop him from doing exactly that:
For Obama, the situation is more awkward. It's easy to explain an occasional disagreement with an ally. Maybe the United Auto Workers are opposing something that will be bad for their members but would be broadly beneficial to the economy. But the sheer scope and quantity of groups opposed to TPP makes this a tough sell. So Obama isn't arguing that. Instead he calls TPP "the most progressive trade deal in history," essentially arguing that the whole constellation of progressive groups are making some kind of giant mistake.
But instead of attracting attention to his disagreements with these interest groups, Obama (according to Yglesias) has opted to make Warren the surrogate for the entire fight.
The Obama-Warren fight gives some Democrats cover
One House aide whose boss is staunchly anti-TPP explained to me that while Warren isn't driving opposition to the deal in the Democratic caucus, fighting with her might help win the deal some votes. Going negative on Warren is a way "to provide some cover to the New Dem types" who are happy to buck liberal groups, but don't want to leave themselves too vulnerable to possible problems with their base.
Obama and Warren are both popular with rank-and-file liberals, so a good high-profile Obama-Warren fight serves to somewhat muddy the waters. A look at the interest group coalitions around TPP, by contrast, would reveal a pretty classic left-right partisan spat.
Hmmm. Does that make any sense? Well, instead of tamping down and attempting to kiss and make-up with the anti-TPP Dems, the White House spokesperson Josh Earnst just widened the schism even more by calling for Sherrod Brown to apologize to the President! I kid you not!
“I’m confident after he’s had a chance to look at the comments he made yesterday that he’ll find a way to apologize,” he told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/...
Has the President or his spokesperson ever called for an apology from anyone ever? What will Sherrod Brown do? Will they meet at dawn with their seconds?
Well, that's today's installment of As the TPP Turns.
We are all still breathlessly waiting for Godot, oops! I mean Hillary to weigh in and add her unique viewpoint to the fracas. How will she thread the needle and appeal to both the Progressive Populists and reconcile her previous support of the TPP?